Monday, January 23, 2012


UPDATE: This past week saw Georgia Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi refuse a demand from Barack Obama's attorneys to quash a subpoena for Obama's appearance at the launch of a series of administrative hearings on January 26, and insist instead on Obama's compliance. At the hearings, Georgia state residents are challenging Obama's name on the 2012 presidential ballot, as they may under state law.
Real BC BillboardJudge Malihi has ruled that Barack Obama is to appear in court this Thursday for hearings on grounds seeking to refute Obama's eligibility to run for president. It appears the Judge's order likely will be completely ignored by the Obama administration. What, if any judicial repercussions will then confront Barack Obama for violating a legally issued subpoena remain to be seen. The White House has indicated Obama will be campaigning in Las Vegas and Denver next Thursday, and apparently his administration believes it has no reason to fear sanctions by Judge Malihi.

Obama's attorneys presented last week their defense for these state-level challenges to his candidacy in 2012, which argues that states have nothing to do with the eligibility of presidential candidates. "Presidential electors and Congress, not the state of Georgia, hold the constitutional responsibility for determining the qualifications of presidential candidates," Obama's lawyer argued in their motion to quash the subpoena for him to appear at the hearings in Atlanta Jan. 26.

"The election of President Obama by the presidential electors, confirmed by Congress, makes the documents and testimony sought by plaintiff irrelevant," the lawyer said.
Judge Michael M. Malihi disagreed, and ruled to uphold the subpoena.
"Defendant argues that 'if enforced, [the subpoena] requires him to interrupt duties as president of the United States' to attend a hearing in Atlanta, Georgia. However, defendant fails to provide any legal authority to support his motion to quash the subpoena to attend," Judge Malihi wrote in his ruling, which may be found here.
"Defendant's motion suggests that no president should be compelled to attend a court hearing. This may be correct. But defendant has failed to enlighten the court with any legal authority," the judge continued. "Specifically, defendant has failed to cite to any legal authority evidencing why his attendance is 'unreasonable or oppressive, or that the testimony … [is] irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative and unnecessary to a party's preparation or presentation at the hearing, or that basic fairness dictates that the subpoena should not be enforced.'"
In fact, Obama's attorneys' argument is specious. It is states, usually through the office of Secretary of State, that officiate elections, not the federal government. The national election is simply a compilation of the results of the individual elections within states.
The schedule for the hearings was set by Malihi of the Georgia state Office of State Administrative Hearings. In Georgia, a state law requires "every candidate for federal" office who is certified by the state executive committees of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy "shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought."
Judge Malihi determined Georgia state law also grants the Secretary of State and any "elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate" in the state the authority to raise a challenge to a candidate's qualifications. This is a breakthrough for "birthers," as the issue of "standing" to bring legal challenges to Obama's eligibility for office on Constitutional grounds has so far met insurmountable hurdles in prior cases elsewhere and in the federal courts.
Three different plaintiffs' groups are scheduled for separate hearings, including one represented by California attorney Orly Taitz. Judge Malihi signed a subpoena for Obama's testimony regarding the case for her plaintiffs, and Michael Jablonski, Obama's attorney for the cases, argued that he should be exempted.
Attorney Taitz believes this is only the second time in U.S. history, with 40 years between scandals, that a sitting president has been ordered to comply with a subpoena, and produce documents, which might eventually bring criminal charges to the president and a number of high-ranking individuals – the last such episode being Watergate.
UPDATE: Official Ballot challenges have been filed against Barack Obama and the Democratic Parties of two new states – Massachusetts and Obama's very own Illinois.
This week, Retired ASAR LTC William F. Reade filed an official ballot challenge with election officials, contending that Barack Obama is ineligible to appear on the Massachusetts ballot. Reade's challenge is well researched and filled with numerous legal citations to back his case.
But perhaps most interesting are the similarities between LTC Reade's and Barack Obama's citizenship status. Like Obama, Reade was born in the United States. But, also like Obama whose father was a Kenyan citizen and therefore a British subject, Reade's father was also a British subject. As such, Reade correctly points out that he himself is not a "natural born citizen" as defined by the Supreme Court and therefore, like Barack Obama, Reade is also ineligible for the office of President.
More states are hearing the call to question Obama's eligibility to appear on our ballots. In Obama's home state of Illinois, three separate ballot challenges have been filed which question Obama's eligibility and seek to bar him from the ballot.
Finally, inch by inch, the movement to expose the Imposter in Chief is gaining ground.
Ballot challenges in four states will not stop Barack Obama. We must compel the rest of the states to do their duty!
Attorney Orly Taitz' website is reporting that a Georgia Judge has issued a subpoena demanding Barack Obama appear in court January 26 AND produce his original long form birth certificate, passport records, collegeregistration records and more.
Dr. Orly Taitz, attorney for one of the plaintiffs in the Georgia eligibility cases working their way rapidly through the courts, posted a copy of what is reportedly a subpoena, issued by Judge Michael Malihi of Georgia.
The subpoena demands that Barack Obama himself appear in court on January 26, and bring with him a laundry list of official documents that will prove or disprove his eligibility for office.
The list is frankly a "birther's" dream. Unlike previous cases, where only certain documents were requested or discussed, this subpoena issued by Judge Malihi includes every document that serious eligibility experts have been discussing from the beginning. The list requires Obama to produce each of the following:
  1. Any and all certified birth records including a long form birth certificate.
  2. Certified school/university registration records. Certified immigration/naturalization records.
  3. Certified passport records
  4. Redacted certified Social Security card applications for each of the aliases and other legal names used by Barack Obama, including but not limited to his legal surname when adopted by step-father Lolo Soetoro
In addition, Judge Malihi has reportedly also subpoenaed Hawaii Health Department officials and commanded them to produce an original certified copy of Obama's long form birth certificate.
While we take a moment to rejoice in a court finally willing to examine the Constitutional status of Obama, who evidence supports as being not a lawful president but a Usurper-in-Chief, we cannot rest upon our laurels. While we may hope that Georgia will be the beginning of the end of the line for the Obama campaign, motions to quash and vicious legal push back by Team Obama are a given. We must work MUCH harder now to open battle on many more fronts, and compel the rest of the States to do their due diligence and demand Obama provide PROOF POSITIVE evidence of eligibility to appear on our ballots!
Georgia Judge Michael Malihi has ordered Obama's attorneys to appear in court January 26 holding that, according to state law, every federal and state candidate must prove eligibility for office – including Barack Obama.
Barack Hussein Obama II, has some of the highest-rent attorneys in the country working tirelessly to keep the question of his eligibility for office out of court. And no wonder, because whether he was born in Hawaii or not, it can be compellingly argued under law that according to binding precedents laid out by the Supreme Court, Barack Hussein Obama II does not qualify as a natural born Citizen.
The U.S. Constitution very clearly requires, in a unique usage and application of the term, that the president must be a "natural born Citizen" to be eligible for the nation's highest office. "Natural born Citizen" is demonstrably held by the Founders in Article II, Section 1 as distinct and different than "Citizen" and even "native born Citizen" – that is, born under jus soli, on native soil.
Documentary evidence shows that in the Founding era, the common law view was that a natural born Citizen was that person born within United States territory to parents who were themselves United States Citizens.
Nearly one hundred years after the Constitution was ratified, in the 1875 unanimous Supreme Court ruling of Minor v. Happerset, the Supreme Court explicitly held a "natural born Citizen" to be a Citizen whose parents were both U.S. Citizens at the time of the person's birth.
This finding was, and continues to be, fully consistent with U.S. history in Supreme Court case decisions, and law enacted and enforced by the United States Congress.
This time-honored historical record stands against the strenuous lying, dissembling and countless other Alinsky-esque strategies deployed to discredit the legitimacy and derail the legal efforts of all those Citizens who are raising objections to Obama's eligibility for office.
By Barak Obama's own admission, his father was a native of Kenya and was NEVER a U.S. Citizen. Therefore, Barack Hussein Obama II would, under long-standing custom, common law, and Supreme Court precedent, automatically be INELIGIBLE to hold the office of President of the United States.
It is no wonder Barack Hussein Obama II has spent millions of dollars in an attempt to keep the matter of his qualifications for eligibility out of court. But even the most expensive attorneys are no match for a judge who understands the Constitution and the rule of law.
As we reported earlier, a number of Georgia voters filed lawsuits questioning Barack Hussein Obama's eligibility to appear on the Georgia Presidential ballot. Obama's lawyers attempted to get the case thrown out, but Georgia Judge Malihi responded with a resounding NO.
In an order written January 3, 2012, Malihi ruled that Georgia state law is very clear – any candidate for federal or state office must meet the qualifications of that office and that Georgia electors have the right to challenge those qualifications in court. As a result, Malihi flatly denied Obama's motion to dismiss and scheduled a hearing for January 26.
The January 26th hearing should be a blockbuster, as it is the first in the nation that proposes to consider on the merits whether Barack Hussein Obama II is eligible to be President of the United States of America.
But we CANNOT rest now and hope the Georgia case is permitted to hear REAL evidence, and settles all large questions in this murky mess of Obama's eligibility for office. Even if Obama is ultimately kept off Georgia's presidential ballot, Obama will only lose 16 electoral votes. While this is an important precedent, and not an insignificant number, we must fight to ensure that many other states follow Georgia's lead.
Georgia becomes the first state to pursue Obama ineligibility complaints and the end result may keep Barack Obama OFF the Georgia 2012 ballot!
Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp's office is pursuing FIVE separate ineligibility complaints filed by Georgia residents. Each complaint argues that Barack Hussein Obama II is ineligible to appear on the 2012 Georgia Presidential ballot. Secretary Kemp has assigned 5 different hearings under five different judges, so that the complaints can move forward.
As our Founding Fathers intended, it is the States which protect us from all out tyranny. The federal election in 2012 and the constitutional eligibility of the candidates is no different. In the end, OUR STATES are responsible for ensuring the eligibility of candidates and OUR STATES will protect us from the tyranny of a Presidential usurper.
With primary season about to hit full swing, time is running short. We MUST compel more states to follow Georgia's lead and DEMAND PROOF POSITIVE ELIGIBILITY for ANY candidate placed on election ballots.
America cannot survive further trampling of our right to constitutionally eligible leadership. WE MUST ACT NOW!
The White House's badly forged "birth certificate" has not ended the debate on Barack Obama's eligibility. Rather, it has opened the door for further allegations of fraud and ineligibility. Georgia resident Kevin R. Powell wrote in his complaint, "Barack Hussein Obama II has publicly admitted his father Barack Obama Sr. was a Kenyan native and a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. Barack Obama Sr. never became a U.S. citizen. Therefore, Barack Hussein Obama II is not now and never can be a natural born citizen of the United States…"
Citizen Powell is correct that the legal question of natural born citizenship is unresolved in American jurisprudence, and in the nefarious case of Barack Hussein Obama sits as a gaping wound to the Constitution's integrity, and to our ordered liberty. America is left in an abject posture of unprecedented vulnerability to our national security, sovereignty and prosperity UNLESS AND UNTIL THIS CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS IS RESOLVED!
We MUST continue the outcry to determine the truth, and restore the Constitution.
YOUR FAXES helped to compel the State of Georgia into action. We must now apply the same pressure to the rest of the 49 states and DEMAND PROOF POSITIVE!

Keep Faith,
The Editors

If you prefer to send a check, please mail to:
Americans United for Freedom
National Processing Center
PO Box 131728
Houston, TX 77219-1728

1 comment:

  1. I pose this question: Since Obama is due to CAMPAIGN in Neveda and Arizona on the 26th, When did CAMPAIGNING Become a 'Presidential duty?'